[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: more xdm weirdness



I would like to add my $.02 to this.  I am seeing everything
Ian has reported with the 4.02 version of XDM from Debian
"testing".  I have about 1.7 - 2 minutes of 99% CPU usage on
XDM startup, and I also have the weird new file in /, but
not in /root.  My system is a XLT-300 that is pretty
"stock".  I have only put Debian Alpha "Potato" on it about
2 weeks ago, and upgraded to "Testing" about 3 days ago.
The only "non-Debian" program I have on it is the Compaq
version of Netscape.  This IS rather unusual behaviour, I
must say....

-Don Spoon-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ian [mailto:ian.q@usa.net]
> Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 5:04 AM
> To: debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
> Subject: more xdm weirdness
>
>
> An update to the xdm_4.0.2-1 peculiarity I
> reported previously: a file
> with the unprintable name <50 78 03 20 01 0A>
> (hexadecimal) has
> magically appeared in both the / and /root directories:
>
> # find / -xdev -name 'Px^C ^A' -exec ls -l {} \;
> -rw-------    1 root     root           89 Feb 20
> 06:37 /root/Px? ?
> -rw-------    1 root     root           89 Feb 24
> 00:15 /Px? ?
>
> The files are similar, but not identical:
>
> # od -A n -t c 'Px^C ^A'
>  377 377  \0  \0  \0  \0  \0 023   X   D   M   -
>  A   U   T   H
>    O   R   I   Z   A   T   I   O   N   -   1  \0
> 020   ` 023   0
>    e 317 260   ; 211  \0 355   l 016 351   e   ~
>  L 377 377  \0
>   \0  \0  \0  \0 022   M   I   T   -   M   A   G
>  I   C   -   C
>    O   O   K   I   E   -   1  \0 020  \0   E   {
> 257   - 203 205
>  376 317   t   9   a 225   v 370   X
>
> -- which looks strangely like a .Xauthority file.
>
>
> Ian Bruce
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> __________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at
> http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
> debian-alpha-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
>




Reply to: